Earlier today, I noted that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) were on opposite sides of a generational divide in the GOP that goes beyond ideology. That flared into an open spat as McCain, along with his closest amigo, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), openly slammed Paul, calling him uninformed. Graham pronounced that Paul didnt deserve an answer. McCain hissed: The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what hes talking about. That peevish retort may have reflected McCains sense that he had been badly upstaged. Or maybe he hadnt followed the debate.

Then, with near-perfect timing, Paul got his response in a two-sentence letter from Attorney General Eric Holder. The first sentence was dishonest: It has come to my attention you have now asked an additional question: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? In fact, that was Pauls question all along. But Holder then admitted, no, the U.S. government doesnt have the authority to target U.S. citizens at home who are not involved in hostilities.

Rand Paul got to crow in a series of interviews. He had pried an answer out of a White House habitually averse to treating a co-equal branch with respect. He certainly got more done than Graham and McCain did last night by attending a Georgetown dinner with the president, a White House move no doubt intended to reverse the presidents slide in the polls and make it seem like he was reaching out to Republicans.

I won’t agree with Rand 100%, probably not even 80%....But I am looking to see if he has some stones as a leader.....That’s what people don’t realize, it’s not just about the issues, it is about the abilities as a leader....Do you think everyone that voted for Reagan agreed with him on everything? Reagan won because he was a heckuva leader, above all.

You’re right, but it did take real stones to do the filibuster like he did. Kudos to Cruz (another man of courage), Mike Lee and eventually Rubio. Plus the members of congress who came over to stand with him.

This could have blown up in his face and yet he made it work. He didn’t read from a phone book. He spoke with conviction about the constitution! Laura Ingraham said she was amazed he could be coherent and passionate about liberty for so long. And no need for a teleprompter!

Finally even McConnell had to get in there - seeing which way the wind was blowing!

That was bold, unlike the quislings McCain and that sissy Grahamnesty!

24
posted on 03/07/2013 1:57:56 PM PST
by LibertyLA
(fighting libtards and other giant government enablers!)

For the life of me, I don’t understand why liberals continue to defend this president. There’s really so much common ground to be made between the left and right. Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster highlighted at least one: the right of Americans to be tried in a court of law rather than be bombed in the dark of night via a drone. Liberals used to believe in innocence until proven guilty.

I don’t know the details of Rand Paul’s views on the military, but I certainly support a less interventionist military policy. If he means to get us out of Team America: World Police while maintaining a very strong national defense, then I’m for it.

As far a pot goes, that’s a matter that should be left to the states. The same thing goes for many other issues. Let the states decide. America can survive diversity among the states, but it’s doomed to fall apart or turn into a totalitarian state if Washington DC continues to impose its will on everyone.

As as semi-radical Zionist Jew person, I have NO qualms about supporting Rand Paul and I have every reason to believe that he would fully support Israel if and when necessary.
He is not his father...thank heavens...but any person who paid attention to his trip to Israel HAD to be impressed. I was. I am. And whoever calls him an antisemite would have to prove it before I would believe a single word of it.

35
posted on 03/07/2013 2:27:58 PM PST
by MestaMachine
(Sometimes the smartest man in the room is standing in the midst of imbeciles.)

Can anyone out there give me an example of 2 politicians - regardless of party or ideology - where one is further up the other one’s @ss than gramnesty is up mcpain’s @ss?
I mean - seriously - it’s surreal. I’ve never seen anything like it...

Can anyone out there give me an example of 2 politicians - regardless of party or ideology - where one is further up the other one’s @ss than gramnesty is up mcpain’s @ss?
I mean - seriously - it’s surreal. I’ve never seen anything like it...

On the day Reagan died, the priest at Mass (military chaplain, a young guy from NJ) said, in his homily, Reagan was a lapsed catholic, having been raised as one, he was divorced and remarried outside of the Church, and so he was not a model for us as a Catholic.

And then he said something I always remember in times like this, “but, as president, Reagan made sure that we could be free to practice our faith freely in our country. He did his job. So let’s revere him on this day”.

Are conservatives willing to go with Paul on some of his more libertarian leaning positions?

His view of the US militarys role in the world, legalization of marijuana/hemp for starters?

While I don't know the details of Rand's views on US military role, I will say, as a vet, that our use of the military has gotten corrupted and out of hand. I fully supported both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, and still do on one level, but Iraq turned into a 10 year nation-building swamp which yielded little to no benefit to us, and the Afghanistan war has become so corrupted with ridiculous rules of engagement and prosecutions of soldiers doing their jobs that it is almost a parody of a war. I don't want to see us wasting anymore blood or treasure on military campaigns that yield us no real benefit.

As far as the War on Drugs goes, I have felt that it morphed into an excuse for a police state a long while back, while being a miserable failure at the same time. Only a crazy person wants to keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.